That Schedule, Again

Costa is not a fan of the current NHL schedule format.

The idea that it encourages fans to take in more of these rivalry games is, to me, false. If I’m not a ticket-season holder, I’m not going to go to more than one or two games against a particular rival — I want to see different matchups and different opposing players. Bringing in the same teams over and over again, especially in so short a timeframe, discourages ticket-buying.

I’m a supporter of the format, and we’ve gone back and forth about this before.

Snarkishly, I responded:

So you’re saying the casual fan is more likely to go to a Rangers-Blue Jackets game in now instead of seeing the Blue Shirts take on the Isles/Devils/Flyers/Pens “yet again”? That’s hysterical.

CT laid down this:

All I can relate is my own feelings when I scan the schedule, and I see the same limited set of opponents ticking up again and again in the space of a couple of weeks. To me, if I miss going to or watching that upcoming Islanders game, or Flyers game, knowing that I’ll have the opportunity to watch the matchup again in only a matter of days removes a sense of urgency. It’s no longer an event — it’s routine. And in a season that many feel stretches too long anyway (note I’m not one of them), I’d think the league would want to avoid even the appearance of routine.

I haven’t heard much bitching from players (I haven’t conducted a poll though). From casual observation I’d say some hate the schedule itself, but fewer the format. I’m not saying the NHL has laid it out well, but I don’t know all the factors in that.

However, a Rangers-Islanders game a month, or even two, isn’t repetitive to me. I can only make the assumption you don’t like the MLB schedule or even the NFL’s because it’s similar in makeup.

Also, knowing you can see the same matchup next week you might skip a game? I’m just not buying that as a typical fan’s perspective, casual or hardcore. Sports aren’t tv shows, the same matchup isn’t the same game, any day, that’s why we watch. I mean, you’re going to skip this week’s rivalry game because the same matchup is on this week, but suddenly you’re going to watch because Marek Svatos and the Avs are in town? I’d think you’d skip that too. If not, I still see you squarely in the minority.

I haven’t heard a casual fan complain about the schedule yet.

The current typical person to complain about schedule:

- Transplant of person from an “Original Six” city. By their argument Original Six teams would play about 4x as much as anyone else since everyone should see them. They’re also generally over 30, since few under that know/care about the Original Six after the divisions have been the way they have been.

- Diehard who can’t understand why everyone doesn’t want to see how Mark Parrish is fitting into the Wild.

- Season ticket holder who really does want to see every team come to play (but will then complain about half-empty buildings when Carolina-SJ get that extra game in).

- Anyone when the NHL schedules two teams to meet in an abnormal grouping. I kind of understand it, but at the same time, I don’t. We love playoff series(es?) because among other things, the games just keep getting grittier. I’ve yet to see the third game of a grouping be dull.

- Media person who’s already written something negative about the cap/marketing/fighting within the past week or so.

CT, I know you don’t really fall into one of those groups, but do you really think adding a game for the Rangers against each team in the Northwest division is truly better than playing interdivision rivals another time?

It seems like a big change (and cost) to appeal to a small group of people.

Posted by David M Singer on Oct 25, 2006 at 05:11 PM
NHL

Comments

Sorry for the delayed response from my end... Briefly, to supplement what I've already expressed: What it comes down to for me is that, if you're going to have an unbalanced schedule instead of a balanced schedule, it should be for a good reason. And in my mind, teams bashing heads in an effort to artifically stoke rivalries isn't a good enough reason. Neither is savings on travel costs (which, as Canucks GM Dave Nonis pointed out, really does nothing for Western teams), nor sparser attendance for inter-conference games (which is a shortcoming of teams' marketing, which merely enables lackluster efforts in that area). Take away those three key justifications, and I don't see a purpose to this half-assed approach. The NFL has a good reason: They can't match up every team in a 16-game schedule. MLB has tradition behind it, which is fine (although I think it's time they ditched that format too, even though I don't care a whit for baseball generally). The NBA, of course, has their balanced sked. This debate is catching fire now. In addition to Nonis, media wags like Bob McKenzie and Allan Muir are weighing in. McKenzie misses the point entirely, in my view, by advocating *more* hyperdivisional hockey: 8 divisional games! Muir suggests extending the season to 86 games -- which I wouldn't mind, if it still started in October. Lots of noise, we'll see if it signifies anything soon.
Posted by CT on 2006-11-02 19:12:38 My issue (and I have the same issue with MLB) is that the unbalanced schedule doesn’t jive with the playoff format. If you are going to seed teams by conference, then those teams should have the same strength of schedule. Otherwise the system is unfair to teams that play in tougher divisions I also find it boring as hell, but I’m a “diehard” (and I have Centre Ice) so I appreciate that my interest in a particular match-up is of little consequence to the argument. One possible solution is to keep things the way they are and return to a divisional playoff--fans of rival games should love that. Again, I, as a hockey fan living in S. Ont. find Leafs/Sens X 437 really dull and would personally want to law my eyes out if the NHL were to return to the redundant divisional playoff system. But at least it would be fair. And don’t even get me started about baseball (I’m a jays fan and I dare you to find a more screwed team by the current schedule and playoff format than the Jays).
Posted by Duane R on 2006-10-30 14:00:33 My observation of lovers/haters of the lopsided sked goes something like this: Canadians and other hockey purists want a chance to see all the talent the league has to offer. Americans - particularly from the Eastern seaboard - don't give a rat's ass about any team west of the Mississippi or north of the border. Nobody in the lower-left corner of this continent cares enough about hockey to have formed an opinion one way or the other. The solution would be: All teams play at least once in a Canadian building. That's 29 home dates. The remaining 12 home dates are spread among the other Canadian teams. eg. Vancouver would see CAL and EDM an additional three times, while OTT, MTL and TOR would visit an additional two times. Besides playing in other Canadian cities, Canadian teams would play the remainder of their road sked in their own conference. As for the NYR division, nobody would care if - other than coming out west once a year - they played their Patrick Division rivals 75 times a year. I'd rather pour acid in my eyes than watch even one minute of a Devils game. Knock yourselves out.
Posted by cambo on 2006-10-28 01:38:37

Next entry: Leafs Fans Get Arena Alternative, Popcorn Prices Stay the Same

Previous entry: Harney’s Sentencing Delayed

<< Back to main

That Schedule, Again

Comments

Feed

Search

Categories

Most recent entries

Network